Spud, landowners should be happy they were lucky to own land? WTF, luck is when you win lotto. Working hard, saving money to buy a property is not luck. How can you not understand the difference?

What you propose is basically a plutarchy – where the wealthy have more votes. (If someone with more land can vote twice, someone with twice as valuable a property should be able to as well – and on that basis for central government election $1 income = 1 vote.)

While I agree with your implied position that rates aren’t a fair way of gathering revenue for councils, your suggestion that more properties = more votes will put power into the hands of those with lot of properties. I know someone with over ten properties. While they may pay more RATES, they probably pay a similar amount of TAX overall as I do (including RATES) as most properties make a loss and they write-off their income against it. Giving them ten votes doesn’t seem fair, does it?

I would argue the rates system itself needs an overhaul. Wouldn’t that be a better solution?

And on a humourous note: “[The city of] Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”

Where is the representation in the current system?, why should a person who owns more than one property, and as such pays more than one set of rates (taxes) only being able to vote once? Under the current system, you should stop paying rates (taxes) after your first property if you are not getting more voting rights to go with it.

If Hide insists on appointing the majority and chair of the Board himself, I would then hope that the Board will be funded from Wellington rather than our rates.

Otherwise he will be taxing Aucklanders without providing us with representation.

I have long held the view that they are not. There are a couple of anomalies that bother me.

Firstly, four adults in a household consuming more services but paying the same as one person living alone.

Secondly, people (such as those who are retired) paying vast rates when they are asset rich and income poor.

On the other hand, I think we want people to work (it seems to be the magic bullet for education, health and crime) so increasing income tax doesn’t seem like a good solution.

(Although, as an aside, everyone whines on about Australia these days, so I’d suggest a 5c increase on those above $250k – not far off what Oz does – and make a tax free bracket at the bottom.)

Increasing GST tends to hurt those on lower incomes the most so I’d rule that out.

A petrol tax would have to be vast to cover the rates.

Maybe a combination? Any ideas?